For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License

[Philippe Verdy]

Chris Travers [mailto:chris.travers at gmail.com] wrote :
> Speaking to Microsoft:  One opportunity Microsoft might have
> out of this might be to develop a logo program for certifying
> that applications are releasing code under these liceses in
> return for allowing them to use a logo which would clearly
> communicate this in commercial sales. 

This could require changing the licence itself, because it would add a
obligation to commercial users, requiring them to register at Microsoft for
such usage (in a way similar with the logo "Designed for Windows", which
Microsoft does not offer for free). This means that the licence would
contain a clause forcing commercial users to contract wit Microsoft
(otherwise the intended use would become illegal, sich thing that can't be
enforced if this is not written explicitly in the licence).

I'm not sure that even this clause would pass OSI rules, because it would
discriminate users. Note that this discussion can't avoid speaking about
trademark law, because this law is explicitly cited in the Microsoft licence
itself, when it states that the licence is not a trademark licence.

So Microsoft could go the other way: not stating anything about its own
trademark, and let only the external applicable laws protecting the
trademark. Even if I like the explicitation in the licence text, one way to
avoid conflicts with legal interpretation would be to state that in a
informative clause which establishes the intent of the licensor, rather than
in the list of rights for this licence.

Another way would be to have a more strict definition about who are the
licensors and authors and how they are defined: by an explicit reference to
the applicable laws, so that the licence excludes covering anything that is
covered and protected by law (this includes the legal definition of what are
copyrights and trademarks and which of their associated rights are exclusive
and protected legally).